President Creating New Board Position via draft of Standing Rules

[Joshua Katz]

Hmm, I suppose that, by implication, there's been an appeal, and it's been postponed. That would be the only way to make sense of these events. You're under no obligation, if you don't want, to answer the email. If the issue is to come up at the next meeting, you could just say you'll debate it there. Or you can reply, whatever you think is most beneficial. If the problem really is knowledge, not evil intent, you could download one of those cards explaining the basic (available for purchase from NAP for about $3 for non-members) and email it to them with your reply.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

Hmm, I suppose that, by implication, there's been an appeal, and it's been postponed.

I don't see it quite that way. What appears to have happened is:

1. The President moved adoption of her "standing rules."
2. KingK raised a point of order that the motion conflicts with the bylaws.
3. The President referred the point to the assembled board members and debate ensued.
4. KingK then moved to refer the point to a committee.

At the next meeting, the point of order and the subsidiary motion to refer will be pending as unfinished business.

[Richard Brown]

Referring to the two  posts immediately above by Mr. Katz and GWCTD, I don't think we know exactly what happened at the meeting or what the status is of the president's proposal.  Ironically,  a few minutes ago I typed, then deleted, a post asking KingK to explain to us just what he (she?) means by his earlier statement that his motion got the matter tabled.   I deleted it without posting because it seems obvious to me that this group isn't particularly knowledgeable about parliamentary procedure and they probably just "put off"  the consideration of the president's proposal. 

I imagine Guest KingK doesn't really know if it  was "tabled" (whatever that means to them), laid on the table, postponed to the next meeting, postponed without date, postponed indefinitely or referred to this  new committee yet to be appointed.  I think the bottom line is that it hasn't yet been voted on and is in some kind of "limbo".  I don't think there has been a ruling yet on KingK's point of order.... which is why the president is asking for more information on why the proposal for a standing rule to create additional officers conflicts with the bylaws.  btw, I see nothing wrong with trying to explain  to the president (and the rest of the board) in a well-written response why her proposal to create new officer positions with a standing rule is improper and violates the bylaws. Providing a link to this thread might even help.

Guest KingK, can you try to clarify some of  that for us?  What is the status of the president's proposal?  Has she made a ruling on your point of order?  What is supposed to happen at the next meeting? 

Edited August 30, 2018 at 03:01 PM by Richard Brown
Edited last paragraph by adding underlined question

[KingK]

13 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

Hmm, I suppose that, by implication, there's been an appeal, and it's been postponed. That would be the only way to make sense of these events. You're under no obligation, if you don't want, to answer the email. If the issue is to come up at the next meeting, you could just say you'll debate it there. Or you can reply, whatever you think is most beneficial. If the problem really is knowledge, not evil intent, you could download one of those cards explaining the basic (available for purchase from NAP for about $3 for non-members) and email it to them with your reply.

All of you would be correct—to a degree (unfortunately). “Guest Who’s” response is most accurate while Dr. Brown and J. Katz have summarized the meeting mayhem quite nicely.

Yes, I appealed her “ruling” (more so denial). The subsidiary motion was to postpone the main motion and refer it to a (non-existent) bylaws committee. (It now exists) The issue is both intent AND knowledge (lack thereof) on the president’s part.

She admitted, she only created the standing rules document to add new officers: asst. treasurer and co-presidents. 💁🏽‍♀️

Those that came to her defense (I didn’t address her hand in this...only the conflicting documents) do not know parliamentary procedure though one assured me that “it IS in ‘the book’” until I offered her my copy to locate the reference. She then shouted a motion to make the “asst treasurer” the chairperson of a finance committee. (Yes, before the ruling on my Pt of Order or the main motion were ‘handled’) The president (among past presidents defending her) does not know or understand any of this...

Therefore—in re: her email—There is no point in addressing her need -to -know outside of a meeting. I read and repeated the rationale from type-written notes with corresponding, colored highlights of the bylaws vs. “standing rules.”

I had to explain “lay it on the table” and postponing (as options to move this along) any adoption to our Sept gathering (hardly a meeting) to be addressed as unfinished business.

[pardon typos/grammatical errors, i’M gLiTcHiNg)🤖

Edited August 31, 2018 at 02:17 AM by KingK
inserted “and” & parenthetical notation

[KingK]

11 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I imagine Guest KingK doesn't really know if it  was "tabled" (whatever that means to them), laid on the table, postponed to the next meeting, postponed without date, postponed indefinitely or referred to this  new committee yet to be appointed.  I think the bottom line is that it hasn't yet been voted on and is in some kind of "limbo". 

 Has she made a ruling on your point of order?  What is supposed to happen at the next meeting? 

You are correct Dr. Brown; I do not know for certain. Update: The meeting minutes do not reflect my motion to postpone. Now, I have to address that, also.   

Please let me know if I’ve adequately addressed your questions in my 10pm EST response posted above. 

Edited August 31, 2018 at 02:08 AM by KingK
added “Update”